SJC finds that Sessions and Presbyteries may interpret and apply the Constitution as they see best, and those decisions are subject only to Review and Control or judicial process. They are NOT subject to abstract statements, such as Position Papers or motions.

The same decision included the following statements by the SJC:

Any other procedure (other than Review and Control, or Judicial Process) of setting forth or compiling a list of essential or nonessential doctrines or practices would, in effect, amend the standards by an unconstitutional method.

In order to issue a binding and conclusive decree, a court must first have a legitimate basis upon which to assert jurisdiction over a specific person or persons. Then it must properly exercise that jurisdiction through powers granted to it by our Constitution

These statements were contained in SJC CASE 2009-25, a joined complaint of David Brown and Session of Grace PC vs. Northern California Presbytery.

At issue was the approval of Northern California Presbytery of the report of a Procedural Committee which stated:

Adopted three recommendations from the Procedural Committee, as shown in their final amended forms below (with votes):

A) “Recognizes that the diversity of practices listed above do exist and have for some time among churches of good standing in our Presbytery.” (MSP)

B) “Acknowledge that while certain tensions exist between this diversity of practice and the BCO, these practices are within the historic breadth allowed by this Presbytery.” (MSP)

C) “Acknowledge that ministers or Sessions may hold and practice the following views referred to in the committee’s report above while being “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity” (3rd ordination vow, BCO 21-5 and 24-6).”

[Presbytery voted on each view separately, then adopted Recommendation C as a whole.]

1. “Only men are ordained as deacons and they conduct the diaconal ministries of the congregation.” (vote 30-0)

2. “Only men are ordained as deacon, yet Sessions select and appoint others – men and/or women – to assist the deacons in their work.” (vote 30-0)

3. “Only men are ordained as deacons and women are selected and appointed by the Session to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.” (vote 29-3) [hereafter called the “Appointed Deaconess” view = AD]

4. “Only men are ordained as deacons, yet the congregation elects women, with the approval of the Session, to serve as deaconesses who assist the male deacons.”

(vote 26-4) [the “Elected Deaconess” view = ED]

5. “Men are ordained as deacons and women are commissioned as deaconesses without ordination, though both the men and the women are elected by the congregation and serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry.” (vote 21-9) [the “Equal Partners” view = EQP)

6. “Both men and women serve as equal partners in diaconal ministry and are often described as “deacon” or “deaconess” though no one is ordained to this ministry.” (vote 21-9) [the “Nobody Ordained” view = NORD]

The essence of the issue is that no court my adopt an abstract statement of what views with respect to the office of deacon that ministers or sessions may old and practice and claiming that they are “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity.” It was that parenthetical statement that was at error.

In upholding the two complaints, the SJC annulled the actions of Northern California Presbytery in accordance with BCO 43-10 which gives a higher court power to annul the whole or any part of the action of a lower court.

However, the SJC made it clear that their decision did not speak to the ongoing issue within the PCA concerning the use of women in diaconal functions. The SJC judgment says the following:

This Judgment neither expressly, nor by implication, renders judgment on the fidelity, or lack thereof, of the six views set forth in the actions of Presbytery.